This Saturday that has passed (https://british-gazette.com/success-has-many-fathers-failure-is-an-orphan/), I speculated on the chances of success and failure of President Trump’s Special Military Operation action against Iran. I speculated that were the “SMO” turn out to be an unmitigated disaster, then Sir Keir Starmer’s caution and timidity will be fortuitous whilst Mr Zack Polanski’s star will rise greatly – to the great disadvantage of Labour!
I went onto suggest that there were indications that President Trump’s action against Iran might not turn out to be an unmitigated disaster but one of very great success with the present regime in Iran being replaced by a democratic restoration of the monarchy in Iran.
As of the afternoon of Wednesday 4 March 2026 these indications now seem somewhat optimistic.
The Iranian attack on it’s “pro Western” neighbours such as Dubai and Saudi Arabia have demonstrated a serious logistical challenge to the US forces. A logistical challenge that has been addressed with a modicum of success by the Ukrainians.
You see, Iran is attacking it’s neighbours in a similar way Russia attacks Ukraine; a combination of complex ballistic missiles and drones. The ballistic missiles are extremely capable, expensive and can only be produced in limited numbers over a period of time such as a month. Drones on the other hand are dramatically less capable, inexpensive and can be produced in very great numbers over a period of time such as a month. Furthermore, the USN warships that have the greatest magazine capacity (122) are the Aegis cruisers, the USN’s Aegis destroyers having a smaller magazine capacity (96). When these ships are under attack they are extremely effective but when their missile stocks run low they have to retreat/withdraw.
What does this mean?
It means that the USA may face a situation where it’s major combatants will have to withdraw from the “SMO” for the USN will face low stocks and cannot continue. This is the situation the RAF faced in France in 1940 – the need to retain fighter (and aircrew) capacity to defend Great Britain against the oncoming German attack (the Battle of Britain).
In addition, the Gulf states will demand missiles in order to defend their territory.
Then there is the oil and gas prices.
Whilst the Iranian blockade of the Straits of Hormuz is in effect the Gulf states have lost the vast bulk of their national revenue. To the very great advantage of the other oil producers including Venezuela, Nigeria and of course Russia! In addition there will be economic and political pressure on the Labour government to allow the oil companies to increase production of North Sea Oil. This will meet with strenuous objections from Mad Ed Miliband! If Sir Keir Starmer insists on allowing an increase in North Sea Oil production expect Mad Ed to resign and possibly cross the floor to join the Green Party!
Of course, the biggest problem will be LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas)!
NB #1: There will be calls (from Reform UK Limited) for the UK to allow fracking!
NB #2: Fracking is NOT a solution as GNG (Gasified Natural Gas) would be needed in the short term! Fracking is a medium to long term answer to the UK’s GNG requirements!
However: To Sir Keir Starmer’s very great relief, the fate of President Trump’s “SMO” will be decided by US politicians!
US political commentators are suggesting that if Mr Trump’s “SMO” goes badly (for the USA) then Mr Trump and the Republican Party will suffer badly in the mid-terms in November 2026.
IM (British) HO, I think that the politics of the issue of a failed “SMO” will be decided BEFORE the November mid-terms.
I reckon that IF Mr Trump’s “SMO” “goes South” then it will “go South” BEFORE or BY the Summer. In such a case, Republican politicians will seek to protect their fortunes by resolving the “Trump issue” before these elections.
Does this mean impeachment?
IMHO, No!
IMHO I think that the Republicans will (with the support of the Democrats) will remove Mr Trump via the 25th Amendment.
The 25th Amendment, ratified in 1967, provides a mechanism for removing a U.S. President deemed unable to discharge their duties. Section 4 allows the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet (or another body designated by Congress) to declare the President unfit, making the Vice President Acting President.
Key details regarding the removal process include:
Initiation: The Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet (or similar body) must submit a written declaration to the President Pro Tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House.
Acting Presidency: The Vice President immediately assumes the powers of the Acting President.
Presidential Contestation: The President can contest this by sending a counter-declaration. If they do, the Vice President and Cabinet maintain power while Congress deliberates.
Congressional Action: Congress must resolve the dispute within 21 days, requiring a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate to officially remove the President.
Purpose: The amendment was designed for physical or mental incapacitation (e.g., comas, severe illness) rather than to remove a President due to unpopularity or political, policy, or legal disagreements.
I regard 25th Amendment would satisfy the Republican party and also the Trump family.
Why?
Because Mr Trump clearly meets the requirements of mental incapacitation which enables Vice President JD Vance to take over the duties of President whilst at the same time providing Mr Trump the ability to remove himself from the possibility of being held to account for any possible actions he might have committed in relation to the actions of the late Mr Epstein. This because a person suspect of criminal activity cannot be tried if they lack sufficient mental capacity. This of course relieves Mr Vance from calls for him to issue a pardon for Mr Trump.
Should Sir Keir Starmer feel relief should Mr Trump be removed via the 25th Amendment and have Mr Vance in the White House?
Yes and No!
You see, whilst Mr Vance will restore stability and competence to US politics he will pursue his own foreign policy in relation to the UK!
You see, Mr Vance has a similar view of the UK as Mr Paul Golding (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Golding)!
Furthermore Mr Vance will be extremely unwilling to allow the Royal Navy to continue to deploy Trident missiles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UGM-133_Trident_II) missiles on the four Dreadnought class submarines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreadnought-class_submarine).
Mr Vance will likely offer Sir Keir Starmer the option of installing multiple all-up-round canister vertical launch system in which each of the twelve launch tubes for a single UGM-133 SLBM is replaced by seven submarine launched non nuclear Tomahawk cruise missiles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine-launched_cruise_missile) and (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise-missile_submarine). Mr Vance will require the UK to formally become a non nuclear state. Like Ukraine!
This will give each Dreadnought class submarine a cruise missile capacity of 84 cruise missiles in addition to it’s torpedoes and anti-ship missiles.
Such a decision will of course be highly divisive in UK politics as the World and his Wife will know WHY the USA refused to continue with the Trident missiles programme and insisted that the UK become a non nuclear state!